> This description of Scott Creighton's
> mid-hoax.html]The Great Pyramid Hoax[/url]
> explains that evidence for one of the author's
> arguments is supplied by "independent researcher
> and art expert, John Snape."
> > eyeofhorus33 Wrote:
> > > The common understanding of an "expert" in
> > > field is of an individual who is recognised
> > > others in their profession, working in the
> > field,
> > > as an authority on a particular aspect of the
> > > subject. It is commonplace for an "expert" to
> > have
> > > published or lectured widely on their
> > specialised
> > > aspect of that subject.
> Jon Ellison wrote:
> > Scott recognised me as an expert in the
> > field of art in particular painting. The
> > application of paint.
> Obviously, it has now been established that John
> Snape posts here as Jon Ellison.
> Potential readers of GPH wishing to test the
> reliability of the author's evidence would have
> legitimate grounds for enquiring further into the
> qualifications of anyone cited by the author as an
> expert. However, you state that you have
> 52112,1055776#msg-1055776]degrees in art[/url]
> (B.A. hons, M.A. dist.) and FRSA. You are also a
> professional photographer.
No I am not a professional photographer. In that I do not derive income from photography.
I consider myself to be a competent amateur photographer.
To me photography is a tool.
> You therefore have a specialist knowledge of
> photography and art (as you've shown in some
> previous posts): at any rate, more than the
> average person.
If you say so
> Presumably, it will have to be left to GPH readers
> to decide whether this specialist knowledge
> provides sufficient support for Mr. Creighton's
Which is always the case, along with an understanding of the methodology of analyses.
> But this leads on to a slightly different
> question. There might also be something of a
> semantic problem here, in that there can sometimes
> be confusion between the terms
> etween-specialist-and-vs-expert/]"specialist" and
> "expert."[/url] Although Mr. Creighton's blurb
> says "expert," does it mean "specialist" ... ?
If Scott chooses to describe his adviser as having the relevant and necessary expertise then that is his choice.
If there are other "experts" out there who have carried out an analyses using similar methodology as described and used uniquely by myself, then everyone has the right to compare and consider. At the moment, I don't know of any others.
If I am the only one, how can I be considered to possess more or less expertise in this method than others?
A second opinion would be welcome.
As far as the semantic relationship between expert and specialist is concerned, I see no problem.
It is usually necessary for most people to specialize in a field in order to be considered by someone else as an expert in that field.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 26-Jun-16 15:43 by Jon Ellison.